Coram nobis

In English common law, a "petition of error" requested higher courts to review the legality of an order or sentence (similar to what is now known as an appeal).

On March 3, 1865, President Lincoln signed a joint resolution declaring wives and children of persons in the armed forces to be free; and on December 18, 1865, the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution became effective.

It brings within the habeas corpus jurisdiction of every court and of every judge every possible case of privation of liberty contrary to the National Constitution, treaties, or laws.

[36] Although the Act expanded habeas jurisdiction to "any person", it also required that an application for the writ include "facts concerning the detention of the party applying, [and] in whose custody he or she is detained".

If the Supreme Court decided that Congress did not intend to abolish any post-conviction remedies to former prisoners, then the second question in United States v. Morgan was whether the writ of coram nobis was available to challenge a conviction after completion of the petitioner's sentence.

Justice Stanley Reed, who authored the majority opinion for the Court, wrote; [T]he purpose of § 2255 was "to meet practical difficulties" in the administration of federal habeas corpus jurisdiction.

"[54] The Sixth Circuit took a similar stance saying, "The Supreme Court has decided only one coram nobis case in the last forty-two years, Morgan, and that opinion is ambiguous concerning whether proof of an ongoing civil disability is required.

[56] In another case, the First Circuit writes, "The metes and bounds of the writ of coram nobis are poorly defined and the Supreme Court has not developed an easily readable roadmap for its issuance.

The Supreme Court determined in United States v. Morgan that a petition for a writ of coram nobis must demonstrate that adverse consequences exist from the criminal conviction.

[60] A developed record not only greatly facilitates the process of appellate review but also ensures that the district court has carefully considered the issues and applied the applicable law.

A writ of error coram nobis is also the proper procedural mechanism by which a juvenile who has been adjudicated delinquent may collaterally challenge that adjudication.Arkansas state courts may issue a writ of coram nobis for only four types of claims: insanity at the time of trial, a coerced guilty plea, material evidence withheld by the prosecutor, or a third-party confession to the crime during the time between conviction and appeal.

The statutory motion for new trial has, for most purposes, superseded the common law remedy; and, until recent years, coram nobis was virtually obsolete in California.

[130][verification needed]New York state courts may issue a writ of coram nobis only for claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.

Consistent with the due process mandate, CPL 460.30 should not categorically bar an appellate court from considering that a defendant's application to pursue an untimely appeal whenever:

Two lawyers who participated in drafting the bill that became the PCHA, Jack Collins and Carl Neil, authored a law review article shortly after the act was adopted.

Collins and Neil observed that one of the remedies abolished by the PCHA, coram nobis, "might have been available" in the case of newly discovered evidence establishing innocence.

Those seeking coram nobis relief must carefully study the procedural history of the case, because past events control over which issues may or may not be raised and trial records have to be examined in order to ascertain whether a claim is barred.

Finally, in 1978, the legislature broadened the scope of the writ to permit it to be used to challenge a judgment in a criminal case based on newly discovered evidence.

[140] In Gordon, the use of a motion to have a trial court revisit a final judgment was the general practice at that time, even though the writ of coram nobis was available for the same purpose.

The principal function of the writ in Virginia is to afford to the court in which an action was tried an opportunity to correct its own record with reference to a vital fact not known when the judgment was rendered, and which could not have been presented by a motion for a new trial, appeal or other existing statutory proceeding.

That section 958.07 of this statute provided: The writ of coram nobis may be issued by the trial court at any time upon the verified petition of the defendant showing sufficient grounds therefor, which may be supported by one or more affidavits.

Four decades after the Court's rulings, lawyers, including civil rights attorney, Peter Irons, re-opened their wartime convictions on the basis of newly discovered evidence of governmental misconduct.

He also served a one-year sentence at McNeil Island Penitentiary for Selective Service violations when he refused to answer questions which singled out Japanese Americans on the basis of race alone.

[147] In 1987, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted a writ of coram nobis which effectively overturned his criminal conviction.

He attempted to enlist with the United States Navy when called for military duty under the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, but he was rejected due to stomach ulcers.

On December 17, 2014, Stinney's conviction was posthumously vacated 70 years after his execution, because the judge ruled that he had not been given a fair trial; he had no effective defense and therefore his Sixth Amendment rights had been violated.

[164] In so ruling, Jessell MR made specific references to the supplemental bill of review, the equitable equivalent of the writ of error contra nobis.

The judge observed that "it would make for better justice in principle for a prior decision to be impugnable on the grounds for which a bill of review once lay, namely that there was fresh evidence not discoverable by reasonable diligence, which 'entirely changes the aspect of the case'" (para.

Moreover, in a Northern Ireland case, Walsh's Application,[170] in which an application was made for a writ of error coram nobis following an unsuccessful judicial review, Weatherup J followed the Court of Appeal in Cinpres by observing, "While the Writ developed at Common Law, I doubt if the procedure survived the appeals process introduced by the Judicature (Ireland) Act 1875", before referring to the provision of that Act dealing with the abolition of proceedings in error.

The above cases indicate that the Judicature Acts and the Civil Procedure Rules provide for a comprehensive system of appeals which effectively ousts the function served by the former bill of review and writ of error coram nobis, which may now be extinct in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.